Type 4 on the upper fusalege of the CRJ...
03-02-2015 | 12:13 PM
#62
Line Holder
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Ours is slightly different in that we don't use EMER depress.
That being said you are still pressing the same amount of buttons as you would during a normal after takeoff check, albeit in different spots. I don't see that it's a big deal.
Why would you "forget" an after TO check? Or to contact departure? I think this is being blown out of proportion.
That being said you are still pressing the same amount of buttons as you would during a normal after takeoff check, albeit in different spots. I don't see that it's a big deal.
Why would you "forget" an after TO check? Or to contact departure? I think this is being blown out of proportion.
The cockpit of a commercial airliner during a critical phase of flight isn't the time or the place to prove to the world how good you are at multi-tasking, and I think most, if not all of us here understand that.
IMHO, if they were to make this into a flow, it wouldn't be a big deal. As it stands, however, it is a supplementory procedure done as a read and do checklist from the QRH.
03-02-2015 | 12:37 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,244
Likes: 0
From: CL-65 captain
03-04-2015 | 01:02 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Serious question: isn't anti ice on the top of fuselage the lesser of two evils? Or is there really no concern that ice could form on the plane and shear off into the engines at or around V1? Now I do know that engines are tested by ingesting hail but isn't eating a ton of ice at once far more dangerous in a critical phase of flight flight than some type 4?
03-04-2015 | 04:42 PM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 127
Serious question: isn't anti ice on the top of fuselage the lesser of two evils? Or is there really no concern that ice could form on the plane and shear off into the engines at or around V1? Now I do know that engines are tested by ingesting hail but isn't eating a ton of ice at once far more dangerous in a critical phase of flight flight than some type 4?
03-04-2015 | 06:07 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 997
Likes: 0
From: JAFO- First Observer
Are we relying on "word of mouth" here or is there an official source publication that can back this up? Can anyone provide the CL-600-2B19/2C10/2D24 AFM or FCOM reference regarding the alleged "requirement" to treat the upper fuselage with Type IV? Has the Cold WX Ops and/or Limitations sections of the Manufacturer's FAA approved AFM/FCOM been revised recently or was there a temporary AFM change?
Did anyone here query the LGB AEG or ACO?
Get it in writing...
Did anyone here query the LGB AEG or ACO?
Get it in writing...
12-09-2015 | 01:35 AM
#67
Tier 3 Candidate
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
From: Canadair Gosh
New memo out for us is that as of 12/15/15 Transport Canada says N-registered aircraft require no more anti-ice on the upper fuselage! Except in Canada where you still need it, because they get different snow than the U.S.
12-09-2015 | 03:55 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
12-09-2015 | 08:12 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1
From: FO
So you de ice the fuselage to get snow and ice off it. Wouldn't it be logical you don't want snow or ic reaccumulating in the same spot you just removed it from?
12-09-2015 | 10:15 AM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Looks good on paper but apparently hasn't been necessary for the last 10-20 years. De-ice to remove the buttload that accumulates overnight or in-flight, sure. But I can't imagine much accumulation during taxi, especially within the holdover time of the wings/tail.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
